[0:00] well uh good afternoon everybody it is uh Tuesday May 6 2025

[0:06] 5:31 p.m or so and we'll call to order the meeting of the Adina City Council in

[0:13] their work session for this particular date and I'll ask our clerk chair and Allison to call the role council member

[0:19] Agne here council member Jackson here council member Pierce here council member is absent mayor Hubling here uh

[0:28] we got a couple of meeting topics uh this evening one is uh budget discussion

[0:33] 2627 budget discussion another work session I think we've got scheduled on that very topic for the next meeting on

[0:40] the 20th of May and so this is a continuing dialogue it's important to

[0:45] everybody on the staff and council level and then we're going to talk a little bit about um uh water treatment plant

[0:52] potential water treatment plant number five at Yorktown Park and we've got some good help to lead us through that

[0:59] conversation here as well uh so I'm going to turn it over now to manager Neil and let him introduce that first

[1:05] topic which is our ongoing budget discussion right so we have um update

[1:11] for you tonight on some aspects of the budget um we'll have another update for

[1:16] you on in two weeks from tonight on the 20th uh PA and Ari have been our our

[1:22] kind of co-point people um on our on our budget development process this year so

[1:27] I'll turn it over to them and and they can run through uh this we think this is about half about 50% of the of tonight

[1:34] but if we get done earlier we'll just go right to Chad okay thank you all right

[1:40] so uh like uh city manager Neil said this is a continuation of our discussion from retreat as we continue discussing

[1:48] the 2026 2027 budget development we're still in the very early stages of the

[1:53] budget development for this next bianual budget um as far as when you're going to

[1:58] see the city manager's proposal on these two budget years you'll see it later in August and then like u manager Neil said

[2:06] due to limitation of times we have that second um schedule work session for May 20th so with that being said the

[2:14] schedule is as of what you see up there we did add in the a red notation from

[2:20] May 20th for an additional work session and then you'll see manager Neil's uh preliminary budget proposal in August so

[2:27] with that uh what we're going to go over tonight is um some of the council

[2:33] suggestions that was taken in after the council retreat staff has commented on it uh and so those are in your packet um

[2:42] we'll gloss over some of it uh as there's time but that's in there and then we're going to have a little

[2:48] discussion on our capital budget 2026 discussion um as far as what we brought

[2:53] to you last time at council retreat some feedback we received back from council and then we just want to touch back on

[2:59] that and then we'll talk about following up on the tiff Centennial Lake Southdale 2 uh and Centennial Lake and Southdale 2

[3:08] as requested by council at the last council retreat uh we'll touch back on some of those initiative budget uh

[3:14] recommendation that Scott Neil had made at council retreat so with that we'll go

[3:21] to the capital budget discussion so originally in 2025's budget we cut back

[3:28] on our levy contribution to the capital budget which was about 2 million every

[3:33] year uh last year we cut back to it to about 1 million or so uh staff had

[3:39] compiled a listing of 26 uh CIP projects that are included in your packet and uh

[3:46] you had to ask what for us to break out in terms of what are the reasons for

[3:51] pushing out and uh for by you putting it back into the CIP and so those are

[3:58] included in your packet if you look at we also printed those for you tonight it's the capital budget 2026 discussion

[4:05] handout that we printed out for you uh the top half the ones in the blue are or

[4:11] with the blue high headlines those are what we originally presented to you at uh the council retreat and then since

[4:18] then staff uh council has indicated wanting to keep investment level at $2

[4:23] million and not deferring uh capital investments so we have provided an update below of recommendation of what

[4:30] we would recommend if council was to keep this investment continuing at 2 million and that is reflected in the

[4:35] orange header section i don't quite I when I look at this I

[4:42] had a hard time tracking what this is um so the blue necessity staying in CIP

[4:52] that would be for this year or that we would approve this year for next year to be spent yes so there's there's sort of

[4:59] two here the blue one is what we presented at retreat but then what we heard from retreat was you guys wanted

[5:06] us to potentially keep the number around $2 million there were some projects that we had removed from that list that we

[5:14] wouldn't recommend if you wanted to go back up to 2 million keeping on and there were some reasonings for that so

[5:19] we provided some comments on why those changes and then it proposed um

[5:24] essentially our revised CIP proposal so if you still want to stay at the $2 million number we would recommend that

[5:31] we do the orange version okay of the CIP document so small blue is 1.4 million

[5:39] small uh orange is pumping that up to 2 million and then the other is

[5:45] description as to things that are not included and why they're not included yeah that were previously like if you

[5:51] looked at the CIP um the adopted document those are the projects that we are are moving off um and kind of why

[5:59] okay thank you [Applause]

[6:06] so what all this is really good information and there's been a lot of work done but

[6:15] um just speaking for me personally and kind of going by recollection of what I I thought I remember James saying during

[6:22] the the retreat and and on other occasions as well is I if we wanted to

[6:28] have a budget that didn't exceed a certain percentage And I'll just use by

[6:33] way of example 8% roughly what we had last year how do we get there and so

[6:40] when you pose when you posit the question do you want to maintain a $2 million levy contribution my answer is I

[6:48] don't know i don't know maybe it should be less maybe it should be more if if if

[6:55] because I'm rather interested in how do we get to a percentage

[7:01] uh of a potential levy increase that I would say uh tracks more along

[7:08] the lines of people's property value increases so you maintain that sort of relationship or at least that's one

[7:16] point you could reference in trying to make sure that you have a budget that m

[7:21] matches up with something And something that's relevant to me seems to be if

[7:26] your property is going up in value in your town an average of 6% well then maybe you shouldn't be above 6% because

[7:34] that keeps kind of keeps things steady although inflation is a factor too and

[7:39] I'm I'm willing to think about what we need versus what we should

[7:45] um ask our residents to support even if it's more than 8% but I I need to I need

[7:52] to understand it all better and these this peace meal sort of approach is

[7:58] really interesting but it doesn't help me figure out where we ought to be relative to

[8:07] relative to some kind of benchmarking does that make sense yeah

[8:14] I think that I I I think that does make sense and I think

[8:20] it's part of the the bigger package and so to me what's really what I'm hearing from you that it's very important from a

[8:26] value perspective is that um maintaining the levy at a reasonable

[8:33] rate and what goes into that we got to make hard decisions and you'd like to see the whole package um what we what

[8:39] Carolyn felt very strongly about at retreat was not wanting that to be um of

[8:46] to reduce capital as the way and means the value right of of value choices of

[8:51] how we go about doing that and so that's one of the things we wanted to get a little bit more direction from you guys on is are you willing to look at

[8:58] potentially a lower number from a capital perspective to get there and maybe the answer is you don't know yet

[9:05] but you're willing to continue to see you just need to see where the budget proposal comes in at that's also reasonable i think the the problem

[9:12] though is go back to your the schedule mhm

[9:19] so August is when we would see the department budgets right that's

[9:27] August 19th is the first time we would see everything

[9:32] and it's it's not really okay that on August 9th we'll know if we're at 8% 9%

[9:41] 10% or if we made decisions that took us higher or whatever because it's like

[9:47] it's almost too late at that point we're trying to get to that answer

[9:54] sooner so that we can make decisions like yeah let's not do this or that um

[9:59] and so that's the like that's the challenge and this is great

[10:05] info but I like I still don't know if

[10:11] we're tracking towards where we want to be or not so it's kind of hard to

[10:20] Carolyn Carolyn makes a great great point you know about you don't want to be slipping too far behind on your

[10:26] maintaining what you own uh in your capital improvements that you want to make uh and your and and if the $2

[10:37] million took us to a point where services were really going to suffer because we were allocating 2 million or

[10:45] more to capital improvements to me that's something that we need to discuss as a council too is

[10:51] how do we how do we how do we navigate that

[10:56] together yeah and we we sit and have a conversation about okay because I know one of the things you said in your

[11:01] materials was well you could cut that 170,000 bucks out of all those or

[11:07] organizations that we've been really good at supporting over the years and that didn't feel good when I saw that in

[11:13] print you know but I realized that there's difficult decisions to make and you're kind of balancing between

[11:20] services and and capital improvements and then your ongoing budgetary needs

[11:26] um and so these efforts look good but you know

[11:33] when does it get you know to James' point for me if it doesn't get tied together until the end of August that's

[11:39] the first time we see a a percentage projected percentage

[11:45] increase from staff um I just doesn't feel right i

[11:51] mean it feels like it's too late in the game in a way and then and then you're saying

[11:57] potentially well this is what you this is the direction you told us to go over the last few months and we're sitting

[12:03] here saying yeah but we didn't want you to be at 12% you know through this effort and

[12:10] maybe you have an intuitive sense that we're not going to be there uh but I

[12:15] don't know because I'm just looking at ideas here and I Oh to your point your previous

[12:23] point too it's it's as council members we're both inside looking and outside looking and this this is inside

[12:31] information this is line by line this is what we're able to come up with we don't have any outside reference for that so

[12:37] we have to look and say what is the community going to feel when they see this budget is it a percentage is it a

[12:45] cut in services is it that and that's why I'm concerned about the capital

[12:51] spending that you know asset preservation because it's in it's it's invisible to the public for the most

[12:57] part um and and so that's why I'm so vocal on it because there is no uh

[13:02] nobody's going to see that it's it's just it's gradual and slow but so we have to look inside outside and we have

[13:09] inside information here but what how does that translate to what people's lived experience is going to be in the

[13:16] city um and and we don't have that information at this time

[13:21] i do think that the conversation that we had at the retreat of and I know that we

[13:27] were swagging numbers but getting to that rough number that we were kind of able to equate to what's the rough

[13:34] percentage felt like a good step and I understood like we couldn't validate any of that and so I also agree like I want

[13:42] to start getting closer to that number and having tangible impacts but I also

[13:49] think that August this time around is going to feel a lot different because of this preparation and being able to say

[13:57] "Oh right we have these two options here now of the 1.4 capital improvement plan

[14:03] versus the 2 million capital improvement plan." And so at least we it won't feel like we're starting from scratch

[14:10] um and so I it's kind of a balance right like I do feel better prepared this time

[14:15] around um but it is harder to make some of these decisions in kind of this peacemeal way of the way that we meet as

[14:24] a council um and don't yet have those finalized numbers so yeah I so I agree

[14:30] with everything that you guys have said um I personally just like I don't have a

[14:40] workable construct to make a decision on capital and that's okay so maybe that's

[14:47] fair or not but I would much rather you be able to say "All right if you do this then this is what the levy

[14:56] impact is." And so we want to preserve that asset so we're going to put it back in

[15:03] there but then the next question is then how do we still target that number and

[15:09] so that's the kind of dialogue that I'm thirsting for but you know

[15:18] maybe we maybe we can't do that maybe it's not as realistic to have that kind

[15:23] of a dynamic conversation but that's that's what I'm that's what's

[15:28] in my head could we get this list to the stack ranked priority that we

[15:35] want to see and then once we see some of these numbers then we can snap the line

[15:41] of what's in what's out um but I know that like there were five in the

[15:49] necessity when we first looked at this and then in the revise there's a few more but I also know like the Louiswis

[15:56] Park shelter building replacement like that's been something we've had dialogue about and so maybe what we can use some

[16:02] of this time today is reflect on the priority order and then figure out later

[16:08] what can we stomach afford prioritize

[16:14] Um we can do that um two things came to my

[16:20] attention this week one is we had talked about um a staffing study and someone

[16:28] said the answer I gave this person was well that's something that we're going to be doing long term and they're like

[16:33] why is it long term and so I'm just going to pose the question because it was posed to me the other question is um

[16:40] what if we do drop into a deep recession what if there aren't any toys on the shelves for Christmas and inflation is

[16:48] 15% um do we have any kind of uh emergency scenario uh setback and and

[16:56] I'm I'm getting increasingly concerned about that um and I don't um I think we

[17:03] ought to have a rainy day or tornado day um scenario for what that I I have no

[17:10] idea how to even think about that but I think you probably 2009 would be the most uh

[17:17] comparable thing to what we're what we potentially could be facing in a year some rough years yeah so um so I just

[17:25] want to throw those two thoughts out there um and I don't know what what the response I'm looking for is

[17:32] what were you looking to get out of today this we got other stuff too this was

[17:37] just checking in on the um the capital side was one stop but I'm okay with literally leaving it you guys have two

[17:44] options we'll come back to this once you guys see a recommend maybe we'll recommend something and then one you

[17:51] guys will come back and decide you know what we want to do all of these but we don't want to do this one or we want to

[17:56] do this and that i I think that's okay for you to sort of pick the allocart menu that's enough direction for us for

[18:02] today but I think what you're hearing what I'm hearing from you too is you want to make that choice in the context

[18:08] of knowing its impact on the the general fund levy right so you know the levy is composed

[18:15] of some big components to it this is just one of them so we can we can do that we can show what that looks like

[18:21] can we work on the screen with a with an Excel spreadsheet or something

[18:27] equivalent that you use where you plug in numbers and then you see what the effect is maybe we can do that in

[18:33] August when we get a little we'll kind of have you ready to go a little bit more with that yeah I think Kate's made

[18:39] a good point i mean we're going to be more well prepared this year than we were last year just because we'll have a

[18:44] stronger knowledge base we're going to be talking to you even though that says August 19th that means we've got to have

[18:50] our stuff ready to go 10 days to two weeks ahead of that and for it to be ready to go we've got to have some dial

[18:56] so we're going to be having some dialogue with you you You will not be surprised on August 19th

[19:04] to me I go back to that threshold question what should the levy be tied to and this isn't something that I've

[19:10] worried so much about over the years but in the last couple years we've seen double digit projected increases from

[19:16] staff to do the things we want to do uh not your fault just an observation on

[19:21] your part that this is if this is the these are the things you want to do and these are the wages we have to pay and 70% of our budget is labor this is what

[19:29] it looks like but it it strikes me that we should be trying to tie what our levy increase is to

[19:37] something that makes some sense not just from a need standpoint

[19:43] uh but that has some relationship to people's ability to pay uh increase in

[19:51] their property values uh generally over time inflation I mean

[19:56] some of these factors because we're we're not the only ones that uh are

[20:02] trying to help maintain this town that we all own together they've got their own pressures on their own families

[20:08] they've got the county the state I mean the federal government everybody has

[20:14] demands on on on taxpayers that own the country own the county own

[20:22] the city together and we're all trying to maintain everything that we own together our own homes our own families

[20:29] um and everything else so how do you go how do you go about that effort in a in a logical way at the local level

[20:38] yeah and I mean I think the constraints externally that you're talking about Carolyn are also big too to that right

[20:44] is that we live in a world where tariffs are on and off and that may have big impacts on this capital budget and our

[20:51] equipment budgets that we we are just starting to try to figure out what does

[20:56] that look like so as much as we might bring you this this is our proposal right now if prices go up 25% we got to

[21:02] cut stuff off this list in order to even stay at that $2 million number so yeah i

[21:08] mean that's another great point it's a variation what Carolyn was talking about i mean yeah what's going on could be

[21:15] inflationary could be recessionary could be both you know yeah and then if if it comes to

[21:23] that too then we look at what's our bang for our buck right that if you know

[21:29] salaries are increasing 2% cost of construction is going up 25% well maybe

[21:35] that is a year to scale back on construction but but sort of you know

[21:40] what are the drivers you know a classification of the types of expenses we have and then what are driving the

[21:45] expenses on that i think it would be helpful people understand our budget too but also then as decision makers we can

[21:52] say gosh this is a we don't really need a Cadillac we just need a Chrysler right

[21:57] now you know kind of thing and I'm not going to drive a Chrysler got stuck in the desert in a Dodge last

[22:05] week so we're we're gonna keep moving if that's

[22:10] okay um the next two slides are sort of along this the same lines as like a

[22:16] quick check-in just an update so the first one was the tiff district um the

[22:21] related stuff for Centennial Lakes and Southdale there was some additional information in your packet we are I

[22:26] didn't want you to think we've forgotten about this as an item to follow up with you guys on um but we are waiting to

[22:33] figure out what happens with the um the interchange project at the state level and whether we'll get some bond money on

[22:40] uh related to that and then we'll try to figure out if it makes more sense to pull more tiff money from Lakes pay for

[22:46] it or what that looks like after getting that number we don't think that this is going to change the tiff districts

[22:52] whether you choose to spend down the what's in Centennial Lakes or use it differently that that's not going to

[22:58] change our 2627 um budget proposal that Scott's going to bring forward in August so at this time

[23:05] we we can allow that conversation to happen as time allows but there is some content in your packet so don't want you

[23:11] to think we forgot about it it's still on the on the list but it's not super urgent um from a getting feedback from

[23:18] you perspective the next one um this one thing that you could have as I read through the materials for the meeting

[23:25] the one thing on that TIFF issue where we've got those two districts that have funds in in them that we've been

[23:31] essentially using as a rainy day fund or instead of doing a levy to do an intersection we use we've got we got

[23:38] basically $8 million sitting there between those two difficult so but the threshold question

[23:45] I think for the council would be uh should we continue to use that money the

[23:50] way we've used it in the past or should we be thinking about turning it

[23:55] back you know I've got my own personal feelings about that i like the way you've used it in the past as a as

[24:02] a security blanket for rainy day fund others may have different opinions so

[24:09] that but that's a conversation we could have we could have anytime and when we have a full complement of council members here

[24:19] and we'd like that too to have an understanding of of the council's kind of collective position on that as a

[24:25] policy so that we don't have to so it doesn't have to be in flux every time we have a question about i think it's

[24:31] important that you know that either either either a turn it back

[24:36] or b keep it the way it is and we'll use it as discretionary funds or somewhere in between

[24:46] all right the next one is the human services task force so our recommendation here is

[24:52] that we don't hold a task force normally we would already be in the process of

[24:57] starting that task force right now we're not going to hold a task force this year instead what we're going to do is give

[25:03] you guys more time to see the budget proposal in August think about whether or not you want to make any changes um

[25:10] either direction related to the human service task force number for funds and what we would do in this fall for next

[25:16] spring is we would just extend those contracts and then do a task force if you wanted us to continue to do this

[25:22] again in the spring so there's no real urgency here we can extend those contracts that we already have so don't

[25:28] want to go through all of the work and then find out that you guys are like "Hey you know what we need to we need to

[25:33] take advantage of that rainy day and now we're either reducing it to 100,000 or whatever you might be um playing around

[25:39] with to give you more time to make that decision so just wanted to give you an update so that way if you were wondering

[25:45] where the human service task force is we're just not going to do one for this year and you guys can decide what you

[25:51] want to do as a dollar amount um this this fall and we'll just extend those contracts and that's the same thing

[25:59] member Jackson was asking about this making sure yes the 170 yeah okay

[26:07] all right now I'm going to turn it over to Chad okay utility franchise fees

[26:14] okay so this is a continuation before you start that i mean there's what I was just thinking about i was looking at

[26:20] James i'm thinking about you know their Kate's business career is not as far

[26:26] along as James is but and they work for big companies and and um and so in terms of

[26:35] thinking about the budget too you know you got the revenue side and you got the expense side and um you got a few ideas

[26:41] in here on on increases in revenue but in the scheme of things they're pretty pretty

[26:47] dimminimous and so what do you rely on to get the things done that you need to get done you rely on increase in the

[26:53] levy for more revenue and that going back to the taxpayers and what kind of

[26:58] takes us full circle but um it's just a reminder that there's a

[27:03] couple sides of this thing that we need to be thinking about all right on to the utility franchise

[27:10] fee yeah at last work session uh we had this discussion and member Jackson

[27:16] member were absent so your other members said we need to see how they feel about this topic so we're back we were going

[27:21] to do it during the uh council meeting but we thought we had some time here because it kind of ties with the budget so I'm going to go fairly quickly

[27:28] because we're running a little low on time but um definitely would be happy to meet with either one of you if you had

[27:33] further questions so just to summarize last time and if the mayor or member wants wants to add some feedback we we

[27:40] kind of heard that we were trending towards that percent fee model and I'll show you a lot of details on that but that's kind of where we are trending and

[27:47] then what is the right value for that for that value so in the packet there was some a table towards the end that

[27:53] had various percent fee models being used so um I'll just run through this

[27:58] fairly quickly compared to last time but there is a statute that allows us to collect these fees through uh public

[28:05] utilities excuse me the history we started in 2012 and established the PAX

[28:10] fund 2016 the conservation and sustainability fund and then 2023 I was

[28:15] back in front of you and we added street lights and increased the P and we said we'd be back in two more years looking at some increases in 25 and 27 so that's

[28:23] why we're here and having that discussion at the council retreat council directed staff to consider uh

[28:31] increasing or generating an additional $1 million for the street reconstruction program because right now that is part

[28:36] of the levy so this could be a metric to reduce the levy and do it in a different method with franchise fees and you also

[28:43] noted that important work of the packs and casts and street lighting has on our city that we wouldn't want to diminish those funds that we do a lot of those

[28:49] important projects and sidewalks and sustainability related stuff so we've

[28:54] showed two options one's adopting an updated flat fee based on what we talked about in in 23 and then we're saying our

[29:02] recommendation is really that option two to do a new percent fee model effective January 26 at a 4% rate for all

[29:10] customers so this is tied to people's energy use um so if they are more energy

[29:16] conscious their fees will go down and if they're not their fees will go up so it's really tied to their their use and

[29:22] both estimates we're trying to raise about approximately $4 million annually in franchise fees so um that's up from

[29:29] 2.6 today go ahead yep um with the percentage is the percentage

[29:36] for all customers what was the decision not to break out commercial industrial from that we'll show you tables on that

[29:44] maybe that'll answer your question i'm not sure in your question but we Well it looks like there was a decision made because if it's a flat model we there

[29:50] includes an increase for commercial industrial but with a percentage model it's 4% for all customers so you're not

[29:56] breaking commercial industrial out separately from residential it it's in

[30:02] it will be because they use way more energy than residential their fees are going to go significantly exactly we'll show you

[30:09] those charts so to clarify we don't have to be tied to the 4% flat we could

[30:16] fluctuate is that correct we can set any percent one agency would say we could do

[30:22] a flat on residential and a percent on the rest the other franch the other utility says no you have to pick one

[30:28] method or another but if the method though is percentbased we can still say

[30:33] one percentage for residential one percentage for commercial sure i don't I don't know we can check

[30:40] on that i thought they had to be the same percentages for all across classes of customers so we had four customer

[30:47] classes I think cuz I remember that being a part of the conversation last time is it felt like what we were

[30:53] looking at from other cities is there was fluctuation i thought percentage cities were had

[30:59] like a difference between commercial% for commercial and 2% for there was a

[31:04] slight we have those tables so we can show you that but yes you could looks like compared to that we could set a

[31:11] rate for residential and a rate for commercial so maybe that can be something that we think about so it

[31:16] doesn't have to be 4% across the board so where we at today is what we use it

[31:23] for we've got about $2.6 $.6 million today um here's the current rates these

[31:29] are the flat rates so residential for for gas was $355 and for Excel Energy on the

[31:35] residential 355 and then those are the other customer classes in each one of those groups um so really focus on that

[31:42] first we always talk about the monthly fees so I highlighted that with you'll see green arrows on a lot of these tables just highlighting

[31:48] that here's what the peer cities do based on the residential customer class

[31:53] and this is um for each so you see Dina's at 355 we're towards the bottom

[31:58] of what other cities do currently with Plymouth at 353 all the way up to Brooklyn Park at $7 so that's for each

[32:06] utility so Brooklyn Park would be at $14 edina is 355 so $710 and what's the

[32:12] unit of measure again for this one $355 monthly bill monthly

[32:18] bill the monthly flat fee monthly pad fee flat fee yep if you look at your Excel or Centerpoint you'll see that

[32:24] flat fee on there as a franchise and these are the things they use it for pavement management

[32:29] undergrounding street lights trails we use it for sustainability and multimmoal infrastructure and street

[32:36] lights and then here's a peer comparison on commercial class so Dina our range is

[32:42] from $6 to $71 for those commercial classes versus Bloomington's at $1.90 to

[32:49] $182 so big range there and we're again towards the bottom just for a

[32:54] comparison um if and then there's some cities that currently do percentage based fees so there is a slight

[33:01] difference like member Agnu mentioned typically they're all the same it looks like it's only Minneapolis has that

[33:06] difference uh between commercial and residential and Hopkins and

[33:12] Hopkins oh yeah slight difference there we go yep so those are current percent

[33:18] fees yep so that one is there's my total bill and I'm going to pay 4% 4% of your

[33:26] total energy usage or your expenses yep excluding your taxes so back calculated

[33:31] from Excel's revenue which goes back to what you would pay on your bill so if you have a high energy month you're

[33:37] going to pay more that month versus the month before or after

[33:43] so option one is just tweaking the flat fee and I feel like we got a lot of questions on the percent so maybe I'll

[33:49] skip over this in the interest of time we could just stick with this this is what we have today um and all these

[33:55] details are in there we we put some numbers in based on our uh discussions two years

[34:02] ago skip over that and go to option two uh adopting a new percent model fee

[34:08] effective January uh we said 4% but again for discussion this creates the

[34:14] new percent fee model individual customers fees would vary on their consumption so the monthly and annual

[34:20] fees estimated are averages based on the utilities 2024 gross revenues and

[34:25] customer counts in each class again we're shooting for that $4 million revenue with an incremental increase of

[34:31] 1.3 million um so this is what that would

[34:37] look like for the current models if we went 4% so we did do some calculations

[34:42] in that first column what would if we took our current flat fee and kind of

[34:48] did some averages and turned it into a percentage so today residents uh on gas

[34:54] do 4.2% and 3.1% on electric it gives you just a ballpark and then you can see

[34:59] those other other commercial ones are very low from a percentage standpoint so

[35:04] they're definitely not there's no tie to their energy use third column what would it be if we

[35:10] went to that model you can see residential uh would be $3.39 so on the gas it would actually go

[35:18] down for residential and on the gas or on the electric it would go up slightly to

[35:23] $4.61 the big increases are those other commercial classes where they pay for what the energy they

[35:31] use but why would we support this it creates a po approach based on consumption so higher energy users pay

[35:37] their fair share and it rewards efficiency why wouldn't we there's a risk of not meeting revenues so if we

[35:43] have a really warm winter there's going to be less gas use uh or really a cooler

[35:48] summer less electric use typically so you can see those revenues fluctuate more often um so there's less

[35:54] predictability in those energy bills and certain customers see a very large increase in their bills when we put that

[36:00] rate to their energy bills so then we compared them uh this was the flat rate

[36:06] is the orange arrows and we said well if we went to the flat rate what's the percent change just so you knew that so

[36:13] that's the orange one and we didn't really speak on that too much so if I go to the purple there's the

[36:19] 4% estimated these are averages again numbers so on the residential would be

[36:25] $3.39 that's actually a negative minus 5% reduction on the gas on the electric

[36:32] side resident for this 4% rate would increase 30% to

[36:38] $461 from $355 but then you can see all the various customer classes so commercial A

[36:45] is a little small commercial smaller commercial class they would see a reduction of 52% whereas commercial

[36:52] industrial B would see almost 180% increase in their fees but the fee would

[36:57] be $47.40 a month will give you some perspective on what that actual bill

[37:02] would be and then the small volume gas going from $71 to $28 and these are

[37:10] averages again we don't have the exact numbers you can see most of the commercial ones go up a pretty good

[37:16] percentage and residential is more flat in that increase we really need direction we

[37:24] asked at council retreat we need a direction uh because we have to do we have to notify both public or private

[37:30] utility companies Excel and Centerpoint so they can do all these calculations officially and then we need to approve

[37:36] an ordinance with those new numbers for you in July and August so they can submit that to the public utilities commission and then do their public

[37:43] comment period and get it approved by the end of the year so it could be effective January if we do nothing we'll

[37:48] have the rates we have today and it just keeps going and we have that 2.6 revenue that we have today we heard that we

[37:55] wanted to consider reducing the levy impact on street reconstruction and this was the one method we heard so by two

[38:01] points by yeah so we'll happy to take kind of rush

[38:06] through that for the two people that didn't hear it last time but so happy to answer any questions you may

[38:14] have could you go all the way back to your first slide i think it was a basis

[38:19] the legal basis for imposing a franchise fee

[38:25] yep so we have franchise agreements with

[38:31] those two firms that we established in 2012 that lays out rules for them to operate within our rightway but then it

[38:38] also allows us to collect these fees through their system I guess and and

[38:43] they do uh it says utility companies typically pass this fee on to their customers i mean it's it's inevitable

[38:50] that they pass it on is it typical they do they don't like the

[38:55] percent models they don't like some things but can they actually stop it I guess that'd be a different question

[39:01] and and we we do this we started with thinking that when we were going to build out the sidewalk system that this

[39:08] was a way to do it that was kind of painless but um for people even though it's another

[39:15] form of tax yeah because we used to assess for sidewalks if you attack

[39:21] and and now we then we added CAS and now we're talking about adding street lights

[39:26] as an eligible use and we're talking about going to a percentage instead of a flat fee which

[39:33] is more predictable than percentage fee you know it just kind of begs a broader conversation about franchise fees use

[39:43] well this reminds me of the work we did on um with partners in energy uh we

[39:48] broke it down you know we spent forever Ross you were part of that um and we

[39:54] broke it down city residential and business and the thing was is that the

[39:59] businesses were the biggest users of energy and the most unreachable in terms

[40:04] of efficiencies um that they were the most independent most difficult for a city to have any impact on and so going

[40:11] back to 2015 Caroline would be very excited about this um because that was the sort of the unreachable

[40:18] um energy efficiency customer so I really like it the fact that big users

[40:25] pay more because we're trying to reduce energy consumption um and that's my two

[40:31] cents worth at this point so for this one and again I I apologize

[40:39] i'm looking at everything through the exact same lens and for this

[40:45] one like I'm trying to rationalize us saying we're trying to

[40:52] reduce the levy which impacts residents

[40:58] and we're going to take this cost out of the levy but we're going to increase the

[41:03] fee that then gets allocated back to the residents and so

[41:09] I so I struggle with that um I agree i would rather have

[41:16] larger users like I'm all for allocation models you pay for what you consume

[41:23] right that's good and healthy especially if we can articulate what the allocation

[41:29] and your how you as a resident can impact that number then I think that's a

[41:37] healthy there's healthy tension there um and so I I think what we will end up

[41:47] having to do I would want to

[41:52] see I would want to be able to let's put it that cuz I don't know if I'm asking you to do something else Chad as a

[41:59] resident I would want to see everything that we're taking out of the

[42:07] levy that still has to be allocated somehow i would want to see my share of

[42:14] that allocation and I want my allocation to be less than it was before

[42:20] i want to I want to hold true to we are trying to reduce the

[42:27] levy but mentally I am thinking that therefore means you're going to have a

[42:32] lower tax bill and so we've looked at lots of things that that's you know maybe not the case

[42:39] um we definitely won't be able to tell you that in August because we're only one component of the total tax bill

[42:49] i mean there's of the total tax bill there's school there's state there's

[42:55] mosquito control district there's county all of those entities so it's quite

[43:01] possible that we could do we could do a great job of reducing our levy and reducing our tax burden but then when

[43:07] you put it with everybody else their taxes still go county

[43:15] taxes the allocation between resial and commercial at the state level but we can do we can so we can if we just look at

[43:21] our own stuff we we can do this what you're describing that that's all I'm saying but I do think there is one layer

[43:28] if we were to think about the assessing component there is a story to tell there of even if it's a million dollars for

[43:35] simple math spread across Dina population versus a million dollars spread across Henipin County yes they're

[43:44] paying some but it's less and so that's another part of the story that I want to

[43:49] layer in where it might be you will see this increase not fully but in some way or

[43:56] another within your county right taxes and so I you know I say it that

[44:03] way because put the slide up again that

[44:09] shows how we use this these funds there you go because we've not said and I'm not

[44:17] suggesting this guys i'm just trying just trying to frame the the way I think

[44:23] our residents are going to think about this if we're saying we have we need another we need 2.6

[44:33] million and we want to reduce the burden on the taxpayers just in this construct we

[44:40] could say we're going to spend $2 million less

[44:45] so we're not gonna we're going to roll and I'm we're going to roll back the pedestrian the packs fund because we're

[44:53] not we're going to do less there we're going to do less conservation and sustainability uh maybe we are going to

[44:59] do our street light conversions right because some of those are in dire or an

[45:05] asset that needs to be updated like that's the rich conversation that we need to be able to

[45:11] have but just in this one we're not we're not doing that we're saying well we're gonna pull this out of the levy

[45:17] and we're going to allocate it differently one of the good things we're going to say the bigger users are going

[45:23] to pay more right and so you could look at that and say "All right James here's

[45:29] the numbers residents are going to pay less and commercial will pay

[45:36] more." I I'd be okay with that but if it's the other way around then I you

[45:42] know we're back to where we started i'll be asking the questions well then how do we get to our target and is there

[45:48] something in this these three that we should not these three uses that we

[45:54] should make a tough decision on not doing so that we can get to the target that we're looking

[46:01] for and I'm not judging any of that i'm just framing that from a conversation

[46:07] standpoint well I think you you pointed out we have two questions one is to do the percentage and then the second is to

[46:14] add the street reconstruction million dollars into it yes um so I think I I

[46:19] would be in favor of doing the percentage um and the million dollars

[46:26] um I don't I don't have an opinion at this point well I think the million dollars is the same conversation we

[46:31] started with yeah yeah right and so I I agree with what you just said um in terms of the recommendation right that

[46:40] sets again that healthy tension right you asked in a more artful way the same

[46:47] question that the president sent to us the other day and said "Why why are you shifting it

[46:54] out of the levy and doing it this way you're kind of hiding the ball on us." Yeah and how dumb do you think we are

[47:00] yeah that was that was that was basically what he said to us yeah

[47:06] so you've asked that in a much more

[47:12] and that was the one on the pleasant way of assessing right we got another one too about the franchise fees about the

[47:17] franchise fees but that's why I like this model so why because so why do we

[47:23] like this model now I would say one when we look at the the direct impact to the

[47:29] residents it is relatively small and we are already talking about potentially increasing that we do see more of the

[47:35] impact of commercial and industrial so I like that part of it the second part that I like is it gives people more of a

[47:44] lever it's not complete right they would have to go completely solar and zero energy usage right to zero that out um

[47:52] but it gives them more control than what they have today and so because of those

[47:58] two things I think that there's enough of a story there especially for residents of we're giving you more

[48:06] control it's still it's a minor change i forget what the number was 410 plus

[48:12] 35510 to $8 on residence so 90 cents difference with 4% but if we go to three

[48:18] and a half it could be flat for residents and we do it all on the commercial side so we could run a couple

[48:24] of those models and I'm hearing you want to know what the individual taxes are on a few property examples for the street

[48:31] reconstruction levy you know how much did they pay compared to what we're saying here on an increase to these fees

[48:37] right then you're comparing that are we taking from one and just going to the other or is it reducing residential and

[48:43] commercials going up which is what we heard from the ETC and the EEC is what they felt commercial should pay more

[48:49] yeah to your point so we can run a few of those scenarios we can have some of that feedback and it has a good story

[48:56] let us run some of that and we can bring that back my assumption is in terms of payment out the door for residential

[49:03] whether it's through tax levy or through franchise fees residents are going to see a more um they're going to see a cut

[49:09] on their bill at the end of the day because now you're shifting it to the commercial i think so too on the

[49:15] franchise fees so irregardless they're going to see that decrease from the street levy portion on their tax bill as

[49:21] well as on the franchise fees because that's going to the other side we just have to let us run we just have to say

[49:28] that like we got to put that story together so people can say if it's true

[49:34] let us run some scenarios we'll get in trouble if we

[49:42] know okay we'll run those scenarios and bring something back later this year on the franchise

[49:48] go back to that last study better i think it is important to tell the

[49:54] story of why we think franchise fees are legitimate sort of taxation if you will

[50:00] what what do we use it for you were the two categories that we've used

[50:07] it most have been pretty popular spending categories for us yeah and you

[50:12] know we do an annual presentation to the council every year with PAX and with CAS

[50:18] so we talk a lot about it too and I don't like to get in that comparative game of what other towns are doing compared to what we're doing i think we

[50:24] need to stand on our own two feet and say we think if we think this is a

[50:29] legitimate form of community support by our residents in these

[50:35] different categories then let's stand up for it yeah okay

[50:44] is at the table the water man is here and you're going

[50:50] to be talking about water real soon it's the only time I ever show up

[50:58] mayor at Prior Lake called me water boy but I was a younger man at the time so thank you for that kurt Riggs was it

[51:06] Kurt no it was uh somebody beforehand beforehand okay

[51:14] so we promised uh to come back and have a discussion about water tree plant number five i'll give a little history

[51:19] on the next slide but uh Ross is here myself and Nate was going to be here but he was ill so he's the assistant public

[51:25] works director in utilities so anything we do here his guys maintain and operate and have to be designed so he can make

[51:33] sure that clean water is supported throughout the community um recall the

[51:38] CIP tour we took last June and we one of the tour was the Yorktown Park and the fire station current fire station number

[51:45] two at Yorktown Park by the YMCA and we presented some information here on a potential location for water treatment

[51:52] plant number five uh we had a lot of studies back in 2017 and 18 of some

[51:57] various locations um and we decided to reook at this site as a potential option

[52:03] so what did we do to share with you this evening we updated some water modeling stuff and those were in the packet so we

[52:10] looked at distribution pipes and storage the water towers in the Dublin reservoir so four questions I want to answer for

[52:16] you tonight is is does the site work and the four components of that that I'm going to share with you is can we reuse

[52:22] the building uh what about the layout and size how does the distribution piping support this and instead of a

[52:29] water treatment plant we asked the question could we just add more storage and would that solve uh address the

[52:34] issue so we'll answer those four questions tonight if you didn't get a chance to read through those great modeling memos we put in the packet uh

[52:41] for you so first question reuse of the existing building we talked with our building officials and and our designers

[52:47] that work on these facilities and the current building does not meet the building code for this type of facility it has to store hazardous chemicals has

[52:55] to meet fire safety standards for operations has to hold large volumes of water and they have to process large

[53:02] volumes of water so it really does not align with the current structure uh we have to create large underground storage

[53:08] and processing system so we basically have to take the building down and dig a swimming pool for this so at that point

[53:15] there's really not a point to keeping that existing building if we try to keep it it's really not efficient from a

[53:21] space standpoint if we can start over we can really be efficient because the site is right at the limit of what we need

[53:27] for a facility like that got the wellhouse there so the site is you take the Tri City State skate park site too

[53:33] we'll talk about that we'll talk right now this review does not include that going away but there's a master plan for

[53:40] Yorktown Park coming up in 26 so that's what we want for next steps so you beat me to the last slide already on schedule

[53:46] and discussion for that skate park so we took the footprint of what we've been

[53:52] designing for all those years at the Southdale water tower site and we just laid it on here the engineers first went

[53:58] north south orientation i think it needs to be turned 90° um for various reasons but we know it fits the layout fits we

[54:06] have two wells that are connected already that little white uh square is a wellhouse so I would rather kind of

[54:11] integrate that with the building or right next to the building kind of hide it if we could and the other wellhouse is 69th Street piping already goes

[54:18] between those two so we would have two connected right away and we want ultimately a three well or a 3,000galon

[54:24] per minute facility so does it fit yes it fits on the site with the skate park still there just needs to be up uh

[54:30] tweaked on location here's what it looks like when I mentioned that we just need to dig a big underground swimming pool

[54:36] uh with the building that kind of the black center line is the ground elevation the building wouldn't align

[54:42] with the processes and storage areas and all that stuff that we need here so this just shows you again that we have to dig

[54:48] a pretty big hole to build this facility and the building would just be in the way to do that so we don't think we

[54:53] should reuse the building now on the distribution piping you think about a water treatment plant's the heart of the system and we got to push water out into

[55:00] the network does this site work well for that um we were pleasantly surprised that York Avenue works really well the

[55:06] north south York Avenue so we're moving forward with the sewer project that going to start pretty quick in towards

[55:12] the end of May we do need to upsize this run of pipe between York Avenue and France so we need to upsize that to a 16

[55:19] inch can be done in phases based on when this treatment plant comes online how many wells are operating we may have a

[55:25] Macy's development project where we could upsize a pipe and if we know the direction of council we could maybe take advantage of that construction project

[55:31] that may be coming up very soon so um this is the one thing that needs to be done to help support the plant in the

[55:37] South District then we asked that question well if we didn't build a plant could we just do it with water storage

[55:43] needs and we learned that we can't it's not we need both we need updated storage we need some uh better efficient storage

[55:51] and the treatment plants needed so we looked at the water the Southdale water tower about expanding that size but what

[55:57] we learned is it drains quick and fills slow so it doesn't provide a lot of a buffer it's kind of a weak point in the

[56:02] system so would more storage in the Southdale area negate the need for this plant no we need treatment in the area

[56:09] to meet future demands we do still need some storage efficiencies and transmission improvements and again this

[56:15] has been discussed the Dublin reservoir is not very efficient water gets stale in there how do we unlock that potential

[56:22] to just do better within our system in the model we have a future project along 70th Street we need to basically connect

[56:28] from Dublin all the way down 70th towards the South Water Tower we'll program that in with the CIP when maybe

[56:34] street reconstruction happens or there's some other opportunities of upgrades when we can do that um we also need to

[56:41] upgrade some of the pumps and controls of that facility to better manage that

[56:48] utilize the storage that's available at Dublin so we can't solve it with storage alone we need both so so is Dublin on

[56:54] the west side of 100 yes okay yep yep so that's that that grassy ground yep you

[57:02] wouldn't really notice too much small buildings small buildings most of it's underground and signs to say don't drive

[57:08] over the top of the tanks yes wait where i I can look it up on the map

[57:15] antrum and 70th just to the west you know where 70th kind of ends north to go

[57:20] to the high school 70th and turn right to go to high school that's it keep going west oh one more block and you

[57:26] know so you'll be like there's a big open grassy thing here what's going on i want to drive on it no no

[57:33] wait i think I did go driving on that recently if you got a small car it's no problem just don't take your semi out

[57:39] there so water what what are the priorities again water treatment plant number five we need some transmission

[57:46] changes here between Dublin and Southdale area and pump and controls and then eventually when it do probably

[57:52] update to increase the storage at the Southdale tower increase the bulb and change that out and do some things uh

[57:59] estimated cost so we updated the cost lots of inflation and lots of numbers the firm we're using right now has is

[58:06] building a facility this exact same size in a west metro suburb so it's 18.5

[58:11] estimated construction but there's a lot of contingency in there you heard about

[58:16] inflation and tariffs and unknowns so we included 4.5 to 6.5 million of

[58:24] contingency another 1.8 for these upgrades for the pipe to go east west

[58:29] and some well integrations and then 4.7 for professional services to design all

[58:34] these things so the total is 31.5 million we'll be inputting this estimate into the utility rate study

[58:41] pause kicking that off this year so we'll throw that in there and figure out right now we have a plan 2930 but we'll

[58:47] see how this impacts rates and we'll have those discussions coming forward but at least we have an updated number that we can talk about but in the

[58:55] meantime we know in 2026 and the CIP is a master plan for Yorktown Park uh with

[59:01] the park we want to be part of that process so maybe the skate park isn't there any longer and we have some other things or maybe it stays and we got to

[59:07] work around it also in the CIP as a potential project would be implementing that master plan in 2030 so if we're

[59:14] going to do something in the park let's do it all at the same time there's efficiencies there of doing the work at the same time um so again I think we

[59:21] should look at the rate studies participate in that master plan next year and then figure out what when's the

[59:27] right time to design and construct that facility and this this also lines up

[59:32] with when Richfield is doing their master plan for the other portion of the park which we thought was good timing

[59:37] from a community engagement perspective at Adam Hills Park so we'll have those two studies together so we want to get

[59:45] whether or not you support that location so we can do all these future steps so we're recommending that this be the site

[59:51] we would recommend removing fire station number two either this fall or next year just raz the building now um with we may

[59:59] have some additional funding with the current project and we can do that and then working with the parks department on their master planning to see how we

[1:00:05] can integrate this so happy Ross and I would happy to stand for any questions what's the size of the skate park

[1:00:13] footprint relative to the footprint for the building that's a good question um

[1:00:18] my graphic's a little off but seems to be about the same no

[1:00:26] seems like it's a good building that we have over there it doesn't have a purpose if the fire station is moving

[1:00:32] but who knows what the purpose might be and it's just it's hard to think about tearing down a good building uh if Derek

[1:00:39] was here he would disagree with that not a good roofs windows lots of Derrickton

[1:00:46] our facility manager oh a building needs a lot of maintenance it's it's one of those on there that if we are going to

[1:00:51] keep it we're going to have to invest quite a bit of money into it so is it really worth it at that point we'd have to have a purpose for it yeah what would

[1:00:57] we do with it and it's kind of a Frankenstein model

[1:01:02] it's one of those buildings that the city didn't really put much maintenance money into it because it was always we were always thinking we're going to move

[1:01:09] right we're going to go to another another fire station we don't want to put too much money into this and and

[1:01:14] have it just be wasted so that's that's that's kind of how it's gotten to the point where it is what else would we

[1:01:22] want to do with the site right so thinking of alternatives in one camp there's okay what if we don't do water

[1:01:30] treatment plant number five right what's that kind of alternative scenario and then also what if it's not here what

[1:01:37] else would we do on this site are there any other things that we've been looking

[1:01:43] for space for we talked about art center but I think that's the master plan next year that's that's next year's work

[1:01:51] parks water treatment plant we need so that's not we need it so we had a study

[1:01:57] ahead of the water treatment plant sighting discussion and this was our second choice site our first choice site

[1:02:03] was underneath the water tower on the south dale but if anyone remembers that

[1:02:09] one it uh had a higher architectural premium and it was in a very prominent

[1:02:15] area high visibility if this one's 31 that one would probably be 40 i don't

[1:02:21] know what the number would be so that'd be the other location a lot tighter say those are basically the two locations yeah we were going to make that an

[1:02:27] educational facility and it was going to have really beautiful architectural design we could still educational piece

[1:02:33] would still be a discussion here park storage for some equipment is still we want a public restroom for the trail but

[1:02:40] yeah Ross has nailed it the water tower site we have an easement there that would be the other but the price would be a lot more

[1:02:46] um and then we kind of figured that Dublin is off off the uh discussion point based on previous discussions but

[1:02:52] and the 6800 France that's off the discussion too because when we first looked at that they were talking about

[1:02:58] putting a water treatment there oh yeah they were going to that's why we kind of held on the water tower site to see if we can integrate it into a parking

[1:03:04] structure or something like that like it is over here in Grand View but they're again waiting on that we don't right now

[1:03:11] that's I don't think is a good plan and those discussions were five years

[1:03:17] ago yeah at least you know and so at that time we we were telling a city council meeting we need to do this but

[1:03:23] it's not an emergency and it's not dire we can put if we have to we can put it

[1:03:28] off for a couple of years so we put it off for 5 years and now it's we're kind of boxing ourselves into a time frame

[1:03:35] where we need to move forward with something that's why you're pushing on the CIP levy that's right well this is

[1:03:41] water i thought that was a good idea though that if they were going to build a ramp over there at 6,800 trash put it

[1:03:48] on there put it Putting it in the ramp was good idea yeah we had that discussion there's no discussion about that no not right now no

[1:03:56] all right well well I like the idea of having some outdoor bathrooms so that's something that that is a Well I mean we

[1:04:04] need the water thing but then we can add a nice to have along with the need to have so maybe there's other stuff

[1:04:09] that'll come out of the master plan that could be integrated but I think the first piece is understanding how it impacts rates in the future in which you

[1:04:16] make sense okay kind of tenatively

[1:04:24] i'm dragging my feet a little bit i just hate to tear the building down i I don't know doesn't look that bad what kind of

[1:04:30] inventory would you want i don't know what we do with it but I but I feel like that skate park is hitting

[1:04:38] basically roped off behind there it gets no use it's our property

[1:04:43] unwind that three city deal put the water tower back or the

[1:04:48] water treatment plant back there and hang on to the building for the time being we see if there's a future use for

[1:04:55] it and what and Adams Hill Park's just a block away so why would we have two

[1:05:01] parks a block away so you know if we It just seems to me

[1:05:06] that it's something I'd like to think through a little bit better myself yeah

[1:05:12] well nothing i see no value in that skate park anymore yeah we'll have Perry part of that

[1:05:17] conversation in Master Park and we don't have any action tonight we just want to see if it was generally supported um

[1:05:23] there may be future actions on demoing that building which would come back to council and we can have whether or not

[1:05:28] that's supported at this time or not so when you talked about putting the the existing water thing the white square

[1:05:37] and integrating it into the building I don't see that in this diagram no cuz they laid it out different than what I

[1:05:42] would have suggested so if you would like move it so it would cover up the little white turn 90° yeah but when it

[1:05:48] turn So is it is it both stick out both directions then

[1:05:54] added lines are underground yeah it goes way out to here so just flip it 90° okay so the so the dotted line is underground

[1:06:01] Ross is what you're saying okay okay don't even worry about the layout because we just literally plop down and grab some I just I thought that the

[1:06:07] dotted line was it re was it that's how I saw it too this way or this way we haven't rotated it yet okay i got you

[1:06:17] okay well future to come uh next year with the master plan and maybe

[1:06:22] Oh how would we pay for it through the water rates and that's what the rate study is going to be done this year and

[1:06:28] we'll be able to identify the impact on that because right now we have a budget of it's like $13 million in there for a

[1:06:36] plant that's I don't I don't disute I just don't I don't dispute the need I

[1:06:41] just worry about tear down but appears to me to be a decent building yeah I

[1:06:47] wasn't disputing the need I was validating you were yeah everybody I think it feels that there's a

[1:07:01] Okay it's 6:37